Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Disentangling the Hyksos from the Hebrews and trying to figure out the pharaonic time line, which is way off. The Hyksos, Shepherd Kings, may be the Mongols in which case they are definitely not the Hebrews who had resided in Canaan for many years before the Hyksos invasion that split Egypt into two pharaonic lines of rule. There were the traditional rulers of Kemet (Egypt) forced to the south and the Hyksos rulers at the Nile delta in the north (according to the compass).

The difficulties lie with the Apis bull mummies, a tradition the Hyksos continued as they adopted Egyptian ways. Since archaeologists and historians see the Apis bull mummies as a single time line instead of parallel time lines they have muddied the actual time line and the line of ruling pharaohs. Kamose was pharaoh and expelled the Hyksos from Egypt, much of which has been chronicled in the Taita books by Wilbur Smith.

As a result of the erroneous ordering of the Egyptian royal families and the insertion of Ramesses as the pharaoh of the Exodus, much of history has been perverted, pinning the Exodus of the Hebrews much later than it actually happened as shown by archaeological digs at Avaris. The evidence of Joseph and the Hebrews in Egypt and their 400 years of slavery are readily seen at the earlier level which dates to the Middle Kingdom but have been deemed an anomaly because that level is long before the rise of Ramesses of the Late Kingdom era.

All the evidence is clear, just as the evidence from Canaan where Jericho once stood but again, it dates to the Middle Kingdom. All the evidence mirrors what is written in the Torah and so all of the Hebrew history is deemed an exercise in mythology and faith not to be confused with actual history because the proof is too early in the supposed time line and before Ramesses.

Aah, Sacred Cows.

In writing authors call them their darlings and resist killing them off to make the narrative better. In history and archaeology these sacred cows pervert the time line and the accepted history and thus what is right in front of the eyes is relegated to anomalies, mistakes, or in many cases tossed aside because the evidence does not fit the accepted version of history. How often such sacred cows get in the way and force historians and archaeologists and scientists to risk destruction of their career or giving in to the accepted version because they refuse to kill the sacred cows and rewrite history again because it makes everything they have written invalid.

How would scientists react when physics' sacred cows are impeding knowledge and the scientific method, such as Einstein's seminal E=mc2 equation when it is shown as invalid? Do scientists reorder the universe or do they ridicule, criticize, and dismiss the new findings that prove Einstein's equations were wrong to protect their sacred cows? Should scientists have sacred cows? Doesn't the scientific method prevent sacred cows by following the data?

When I was a child, I spoke as a child and saw as a child, but when I became an adult, I spoke as an adult and saw as an adult.

Monday, January 23, 2017

Frank vs. God is a movie that we all should watch, especially if we avoid talking about god or watching or reading anything about god. There is a lot more to the story than a man whose house and dog were destroyed when a tornado took out his house, the only house on the block, and the insurance company wouldn't pay to rebuild the house because the house and dog were destroyed as an act of god. In plain business, insurance business, terms, David Frank was not covered because the insurance company had hedged their bets and cut their losses.

Do you realize that an act of god clause is so that insurance companies can limit their losses? Oh, you didn't realize that insurance companies are in the business of making money, that they are legalized corporate gamblers instituted for the sole purpose of making money? Too bad. David Frank didn't know that either and that is why he got screwed.

David Frank, determined to get restitution for his losses, decides to sue God since it was, according to the legal and binding contract he signed with the insurance company, God's fault his house was utterly destroyed and his dog, Brutus, killed. What the insurance company (and God) didn't count on is that David Frank is a corporate lawyer, a really good and successful corporate lawyer and he is serious about suing God.

And he does.

The judge, because of the advice his campaign manager gave him, decides against the usual way of dealing with what are termed frivolous lawsuits and throwing David Frank's lawsuit out the first day decides it would be good for his political career to hear the case. After all, the judge is certain David Frank will crash and burn and he will look good with the voters in the media. What does he have to lose?

That is the real point of this movie and this post. What does anyone have to lose when they sign a social contract and take on the evil opposition?

To the sign-carrying individuals outside the courtroom every day calling David Frank a heretic and a sinner blaspheming against God and begging God to strike David Frank down, they are righteous because they are defending God and anything they do to David Frank because he mocks God is justified. Everything is justified when standing up for God -- even killing David Frank and taking his life. Nothing is against the law and everything is justified under God to protect the sanctity of God.

That same righteous argument is used in defense of violence every time someone calls someone else a name, slanders and libels someone else, threatens to bomb someone's house or their car, sets someone's property on fire, pillages someone's store, steals or destroys someone's property, or guns someone down, or rapes and murders someone. Everything is justified when the other person is in the wrong and you are in the right -- even when what you believe is based on a lie.

Here in the United States of America were are at war. The right side is the side that protects women's rights, children, and the sanctity of human civil rights. The wrong side is the other side that has committed crimes from "...questionable business dealings to allegations of sexual assault." At least that is what The Atlantic Monthlyclaimed.

Trump will also leave people without health care as he destroys the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Well, he did say so when he was on the campaign trail and, unlike every other politician that promised Hope and Change and delivered nothing once they were sworn into office, the opposition believes Trump because he's not a politician and he doesn't understand how politics works or how to run a country like the USA.

How many people screaming for Trump's impeachment before he even took office bothered to look at what Trump actually said and did? Did they read Trump's position on the Affordable Care Act or health care?

First and foremost, did any of Trump's opposition stop to think about what happens when a bill passed by Congress is repealed? Trump cannot just say the Affordable Care Act is dead. He must first ask Congress to set in motion the actions necessary by law and spelled out in the U.S. Constitution to repeal the law. Trump may ask, but Congress must act. The President of the United States cannot repeal Obamacare -- or indeed any law. He must follow the process laid out in the U.S. Constitution.

The same process must be followed if the President of the United States decides to repeal Roe v. Wade. Though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Roe v. Wade is constitutional, Trump must ask Congress to initiate the action to repeal the law before Roe v. Wade can be repealed or erased from the books. The same is true of any laws on the books that have been legally enacted by Congress and ratified by the sitting President.

The same is not true of Executive Orders signed by the President. Executive Orders can be erased by the sitting President signing an Executive Order of his own that strikes down his predecessors' executive orders. In fact, a single Executive Order signed by the sitting President can invalidate all the executive orders signed into existence by any and all predecessors, such as the provisions to the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) that Obama signed into existence
with his own Executive Pen, including turning over control of the Internet to the United Nations that became effective October 1, 2016 and every other questionable part of the TPP Obama flourished his Executive Pen over, including handing over sovereignty of the United States to the U.N. because that will enhance US security. The point of all this is that what you think is right is not the only measure of what is actually right -- or righteous.

Trump has been vilified, ridiculed, denounced, and blamed for the direction the United States is pursuing. He has been denounced as a violator of women's rights and called on to answer for his assault on women because of a video where he claimed to be a stud in front of other men who could have any woman he wanted. How many men and boys have claimed the same from the time they hit puberty? How many men claimed to be a chick magnet, a stud, a real player in front of women they intended to seduce?

Men claim to be sensitive to women's rights and women's needs, but that is a more recent phenomenon especially in a culture where women are chattel to be bartered and sold like cattle. Women have feminists now who will knock a man down when he asserts his rights in modern times in the Western world, but there are plenty of cultures where women are still objects to be bought and sold in alleys and in broad daylight where they must hide their hair, their faces, and their bodies to keep men from being overcome by a woman's power and it has nothing to do with protecting women's chastity since in those same cultures, if a woman is raped she is judged to have incited the rape and is put to death or stoned or both. Where are the women's marches in those countries?

What we see in the mainstream media is little more than propaganda meant to inflame the people and enrage them by spouting half truths and outright lies in order to incite violence that will hopefully burst into civil war and then world war. Mob mentality rules.

Being moved to violence is the goal and the tactics strike at our emotions, often through graphic video and photos, most of which are Photoshopped, faked, and staged, in order to shut down common sense and rational thought. Why else would a protest for women's rights, the same rights that women have enjoyed in the United States and other civilized western nations, when no woman's right have been violated. Women are free to vote, free to choose abortion or adoption or having a child, free to protest, free to run for office, free to own and operate a business, a home, and a career, free to be police officers, soldier, and pilots, and free to serve as officers or enlisted soldiers. No one can take that away without the majority consent and votes of Congress and the president does not have the authority to take those rights away.

How many tens of thousands of women marched safely in protest? How many knew they were marching for the Democratic National Convention or the Democratic Party trying to de-legitimize Donald Trump's presidency? How many of those women knew they were marching for Hillary and Democrats and the loss of the November 2016 political races where the voters chose Republicans over Democrats at the polls? How many of those tens of thousands of women listening to incendiary speeches by female celebrities threatening to bomb the White House knew they had marched for threats of bombings the White House and harming President Trump, his wife, and his family? How many of those tens of thousands of women helped to set fires, impede emergency vehicles, or assaulted police officers? Is that what those women signed up for when they planned to march for women's rights? What about the rights of the people they harmed?

In the movie Frank vs. God, Corporate Attorney David Frank stated that God was omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient -- all powerful, present everywhere, and all knowing. The protesters outside the courthouse, and especially the man who shot David Frank in the name of God, evidently did not know that God had that much power. After all, why would an all power, all knowing God who is always everywhere need with a gun or a man filled with hate to do his dirty work? Maybe his believers don't believe in God's power any more than David Frank does. That is why they took it into their own hands.

The protesters don't believe in freedom or the U.S. Constitution, Congress, or the rule of law any more than God's messengers did. Beware your message of gets lost the moment you hammer your point across when you assault another person, take his life, his property, his voice, and his constitutional and legal rights in the name of peace. Your message of peace and love has been trumped by hate born of ego.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Throughout the latter part of the campaign season just past as Hillary and Trump stumped for votes, Hillary's Stronger Together message took on another slogan: Love Trumps Hate.Hillary lost and the message that Love Trumps Hate continues as tens of thousands of people, many who never voted for Hillary or Trump, continue to carry signs and chant the slogan: Love trumps Hate.These activists protested up to December 19, 2016, begged electors to change their votes to Hillary and declare her the new President of the United States (POTUS), abandoning their sworn oaths as electors to do their duty to their country by declaring Hillary the winner. There were claims that electors were offered money to offset the fines in those states that impose fines for faithless electors. I watched video of two electors already pledged to Donald Trump state they would not cast their electoral votes for Trump because of the claims that Trump was a hateful person who disrespected women, threatened them with grabbing their pussies, and in general was a reprehensible demagogue who was unfit for the office of President and unable to steer a straight course for the American ship of state.Out of the 306 electoral votes Trump won during the election he ended up with 304 after the electors in all states had cast their votes, clearly well over the 270 votes Trump needed to win the election fair and square. When the Electoral College votes were tabulated, 7 electors voted against their pledge candidate: 2 against Trump and 5 against Hillary. According to Wikipedia,"A further three electors attempted to vote against Clinton but were replaced or forced to vote again. Ultimately, Trump received 304 electoral votes and Clinton garnered 227, while Colin Powell won three, and John Kasich, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Faith Spotted Eagle each received one."Though Trump did not win the popular vote, it was the Electoral College votes that handily resulted in declaring Trump President, which is the way the United State Constitution set up the voting process because, as Thomas Jefferson stated, pure democracies are doomed to failure. The Founding Fathers chose a democratic republic for the their brand new country and set up the Electoral College to ensure the USA would not end up at the mercy of the mob -- the popular vote. As Hillary ably showed, Trump won most of the country's votes while Hillary cleaned up in New York, California, and Wisconsin, states with the largest population centers in the country. Had Hillary won, the future of this country would have been determined by the majority, the mob. The Electoral College votes, even with 7 faithless electors, was determined by 538 electoral votes that spread the deciding vote across all the states and not just the states with the highest population. The 227 electoral votes Hillary won wasn't even close to the 270 electoral votes needed to win. The anguished cries of "Hillary won the popular vote" crashed against the solid bulwark of the Founding Fathers' foresight in instituting the Electoral College. It is the same mistake when Hillary campaigned against Obama in 2008, failing to garner sufficient numbers of delegate votes to win the nomination at the Democratic National Convention. She won the popular vote, but in the end lost the delegates to Obama in the same fashion that Bernie Sanders won the popular vote and failed to get enough of the delegate votes to capture the Democratic Party nomination. Disgruntled Hillary supporters, as well as disenfranchised Bernie Sanders's supporters still smarting after being summarily handed over to Hillary in a demonstration of Democratic Party solidarity, howled and screamed their rage when it became clear Trump had won by a narrow margin. Trump was not their president they declared, shouting "Love trumps Hate" as they marched, demonstrated, rioted, looted, burned, and impeded even emergency vehicle traffic. Holding their placards and banners high, "Love trumps Hate," these supporters assaulted everyone they believed had betrayed the country by voting for Trump, often without listening when their victims declared they had voted for Johnson or Stein or abstained from voting. The "Love trumps Hates" gangs took their rage out on everyone and anyone they believed had allowed Trump to triumph over the people's choice, Hillary Clinton. The violent mob mentality continued until Thursday, January 19, 2017 when Donald J. Trump took the oath of office and was sworn in as President of the United States in spite of boycotts, marches, demonstrations, burnings, looting, violence, and assaults on civilians and police still chanting "Love trumps Hate"! Many members of the mob admittedly never voted for Hillary or Trump during the election. They didn't vote for Gov. Gary Johnson or Dr. Jill Stein either. They chose not to make their choices known at the ballot box, but they were determined to make their voices heard loudly and clearly right up to and beyond Inauguration Day. "Love trumps Hate"!The "Love trumps Hate" crowd have made it plain that President Donald J. Trump is not their representative and have vowed to make sure the next 4 years they will obstruct, impede, and refuse to obey whatever President Trump does and says during his tenure in the White House the same way that those voters who declared President Barack Obama was not their representative when he entered the White House after he was inaugurated in January 2009. The difference is President Obama's opposition created the Tea Party Movement to voice their opposition to Obama's tenure and held Obama's feet to the fire on every issue. The fact that the Republican Party candidates took control of both houses of Congress (House of Representatives and the Senate) in the autumn of 2009 is proof of their opposition to Obama. Even though Trump failed to win the popular vote during the 2016 campaign, the Republican Party candidates won at every level of government: local, state, and federal, a resounding defeat for the Democratic Party across the board. Both houses of Congress picked up more Republicans during 2016 delivering a stunning defeat to Democrats throughout the country, not only to Hillary but to outgoing President Obama. Amid unsubstantiated claims that the Russians and President Vladimir Putin tampered with the presidential race, disaffected voters (and nonvoters protesting Trump's election) cling to that hope that some shred of evidence will prove that Trump cheated to win in the same what opposition to Obama claimed that Obama was not born in the United States and was not an eligible candidate for President of the United States. The fact that Obama's much publicized State of Hawaii birth certificate posted on the WhiteHouse.gov website was proven to be a fake has been lost in the claims that Trump has never held public office and is therefore unsuited to hold the highest office in the land. It does not matter that Obama's experience in public office is in a term as an Illinois state senator and an uncompleted sophomore term in the U.S. Senate are not much more experience than the 40 years Trump spent as a businessman and real estate mogul. We, the people, tend to forget the men who first took office in the United States of America's fledgling government were not politicians but printers, publishers, ministers, soldiers, silversmiths, farmers, and business owners, men who had no experience in politics other than what they learned as they broke away from England and set up their own government, sending farmers and lawyers and publishers as ambassadors to European countries to make treaties, make loans, and make peace or ready for war, the same farmers, ministers, and businessmen who took their muskets and fought the trained soldiers, the Red Coats, sent by King George (mad King George) to put down the colonists' rebellion and restore British order. We all start from somewhere, often choosing a path different than the one we originally set out on, learning as we go. The future is a not set in stone and often seems to be set in water beginning down the mountains as snow melts into rivulets, creeks, and streams, joining the rushing rivers and cascading in torrents, picking up stones, pecking away at mountains, eating the sand and soil along its path until it ends in the sea, frequently widening river banks, cutting new streams, and changing the course of rivers along the way. Nothing stands in the way for long and few things remain unchanged by the relentless headlong dash to the sea. We have seen frontiersmen like Daniel Boone, and soldiers like Andrew Jackson and Ulysses Grant, slaves like Fredrick Douglass, and men and women of different backgrounds take their place in the U.S. government to contribute their time and talents in service to the people. Not until more recent times have we seen men and women graduate from school to take their seats in government, not for a term or two, but for 30, 40, and 50 years, no longer serving the people, but serving themselves at the expense of the people. Maybe it is time for a change, a chance to go back to the roots out of which this country, the United States of America, grew and give the people the chance to speak through their elected representatives, men and women who have worked in the world and are not merely the latest generation of a long line of lawyers and politicians who work for themselves. We may see disaster over the next 4 years or we may see a brighter future. The only thing we will know is by keeping our eyes, the peoples' eyes, on what proceeds from President Trump's policies. Only that way will we, the people, know for sure whether this President, like so many others before him, are speaking for the country or are merely a mouthpiece for the Powers That Be. Only then will we be able to decide whether to love or hate Trump. That is all. Disperse.